Page 93 -
P. 93

still a critical part of the software process, the project manager may require a deskcheck in
                          order to ensure that it does not have defects. For example, many QA teams employ auto-
                          mated test scripts, and it is usually necessary to ensure that the finished automated prod-
                          uct actually covers the test plan that it was meant to automate. However, it would be
                          unnecessary and very time-consuming to ask programmers, requirements analysts,
                          project managers, and stakeholders to cross-reference each script with a test plan. A
                          deskcheck can be used to verify that the script is correct, and to ensure that more than one
                          QA engineer has taken responsibility for the quality of the script.
                          Sometimes a checklist is used to ensure that the work product meets the organization’s
                          standards. However, unlike an inspection, a deskcheck can be performed without a check-
                          list. The deskcheck usually relies entirely on the reviewer’s knowledge of the project and
                          professional standards for the work product.

                          Figure 5-2 contains an example of comments from a deskcheck that was used by a tester
                          to find defects in an automation script. In this case, the entire review was performed via
                          email: the author mailed the script to the reviewer, and the reviewer read it and emailed
                          the comments back to the author. These comments are much simpler than the inspection
                          log in Figure 5-1. In an inspection, each log entry must either resolve a defect or indicate
                          that it is an open issue that must be resolved. Deskcheck comments can simply point out
                          issues or raise questions without having to supply solutions or promise a resolution. There
                          was no follow-up or approval, and the reviewer had no more contact with this script.

                                  Reviewer’s name:  Sophie (senior QA engineer)
                                  Author’s name:  Dean (junior QA engineer)
                                  Title:        Contract certification-automated test script #TP-491-A
                                  Review date:  8/12/03
                                  No. of review hours:  2



                                  Location  Comments
                                  Global   Script does not adequately copy databases in when the data changes.
                                  Case 14  The test plan logs in as “Administrator;” this script logs in as “Admin.”

                                  Case 52, 53  What exactly is printed? It’s not clear, you should be looking for specific data.
                                  Case 61  The test plan tests all of the preferences, but the script only tests the first five.



                          FIGURE 5-2. Sample deskcheck comments
                          Deskchecks can be used as predecessors to inspections. In many cases, having an author of
                          a work product pass his work to a peer for an informal review will significantly reduce the
                          amount of effort involved in the inspection. Many defects can be caught by a single person
                          reviewing a document. Approval and consensus is built later on during the inspection
                          meeting; this is simply a way of saving effort. After a deskcheck, many authors will feel
                          much more comfortable sending their document into an inspection—it will often help the
                          author to be more objective and to take the inspection comments less personally.
                                                                                                REVIEWS  85
   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98